Weapons of Mass Discussion

More from the Dayton Daily Democrat

From the Mighty Pen of Martin Gottlieb of DDN

Sometimes, to some ears, President George W. Bush sounds suspiciously — even stunningly — liberal when discussing Iraq.

"We're changing the world," he said in his last press conference, sounding more than a little like a young campus idealist's dream of a president. We have a responsibility to foster freedom, he said, just as we have a responsibility to combat hunger (which he noted he has done even in the case of "evil" North Korea) and AIDS (which he has proposed a surprisingly major effort to do).

Such talk might not sound liberal to some people. But it represents a view of the American role in the world that was first associated with Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who fought World War I to "make the world safe for democracy." Wilson has been widely derided by many conservatives as a hopeless idealist.

If Bush's talk still doesn't sound liberal to you, try to square it with his opposition in 2000 to "nation-building."

Isn't that cute; Marty is trying to paint the President as some sort of lilly-livered liberal. While there are some things about "compassionate conservatism" that hardcore conservatives oppose, mainstream Republicans appreciate what the President has accomplished.

I'm not a fan of the price tag, but the Prescription Drug Benefit for Seniors was brilliant.

But Marty is focused on foreign policy, so should I...

Liberating millions of people in a relatively short period of time is a worthy endeavor for a President. Stopping the brutal regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were key opening moves on the War on Terror (which is another whole post).

Or try to imagine the field day that conservatives would have with a Democratic president who was talking this way.

Well, if Democratic Presidents would take decisive action against our enemies; I'm sure the conservatives would support it. Unfortunately, we've not seen that in my lifetime.

We'll skip the sections of William F. Buckley and William ("the Zionist Master") Kristol but I'll summerize: Marty finds an article by Buckley that touts the isolationist line and Kristol says he'd support Kerry over a "Buchannanite" isolationist. In the end, it comes down to the fact that the definition of "traditional conservative" is changing to some degree. Marty missed the memo.

Here is his exit strategy:

The New York Times' article that presents this split says it poses questions "for President Bush about the degree of support he can expect from his political base."

The answer to those questions is easy: There's no problem whatsoever.

If we are talking about the 2004 election, the conservatives of all stripes will be there for Bush. They'll be enthusiastic, energetic and unequivocal. Nothing can change that. Not huge deficits, not big domestic spending, not internationalist idealism, nothing.

Marty nails this one: there will be no problem because the President is vastly more conservative than John Kerry could ever pretend to be. 9/11 changed the world and the citizenry has become more conservative, but not rabidly so. Those of us who were moderates or centrists have shifted, for the most part, to the right. That broadens the base quite a bit, Marty.

Every time there's a presidential election, somebody speculates about breaks in Republican ranks. Several times in a row now, there was supposed to be some sort of showdown at the party's national convention over abortion. It never happens. (It won't happen over the anti-gay constitutional amendment, either.)

I can't just hear the "Darn it!" that I'm sure Marty exclaimed after writing that paragraph. That's just too bad. Really.

Still, the post-election situation is worth wondering about if Bush wins. Could there be some sort of split among Republicans like the split that occurred among Democrats over Vietnam, which was destructive, bitter and lasting?

Maybe at the highest levels. The split among conservatives in Washington and New York might affect, say, nomination fights within the administration.

More wishful thinking on the part of Marty. This won't come to pass either...hate to be the harbinger of such "bad" news.

But at the Main Street level of the Republican Party, conservatives aren't divided into neos and traditionalists. Most don't even engage that debate or think in those terms. For them, conservatism in time of war is about supporting the president and the troops and flag.

Sheesh, man, that wasn't very subtle at all. Why not just come out and say that you think Republicans are stupid. We can read between your lines, fool. We don't care that you despise us. We aren't big fans of elitists like you either.

It is also about success and failure, though. Enough frustration in Iraq will start turning party chairmen and candidates into skeptics for reasons that have nothing to with ideological predispositions, and everything to do with the need to win elections.

What is bad for the nation is good for the Democratic Party. thank you for reminding me of that, Marty.

The current little uproar on the traditional right flowered when things turned in Iraq from murky to bad. That tells you what you need to know about any future divisions.

Yes, it tells you that we remain reolute behind the President and would appreciate a bit less obstructionism from our friends on the left. And quite frankly, we could do without the comments that comfort and embolden our enemy (that's the terrorists, Marty) like those of Teddy "Chappaquidick" Kennedy calling Iraq "Bush's Vietnam." That is just irresponsible rhetoric and he should be called on it.

Hey Marty...have you seen this weeks poll numbers? Just asking...

Update

May have to start another whole blog tearing apart our friend Marty here. He's got another piece up titled, "Iraq Must Fear U.S. Withdrawal" that is just a hoot when you realize that Partisan Media^TM hacks like Marty are the ones giving the Iraqis the fear.